4 ms·

That sound you hear is the sound thousands of advertisers creaming their pants. Now you will have to look at that ad, even if you close your eyes.

billybob 15y ago
Not if the software is open source. On the contrary, you could run Adblock and never see another billboard.
- hcal 15y ago
  I am struck by the brilliance of this idea.
- sixtofour 15y ago
  Why would you think this could ever be open source. It will be expensive to develop, and no corporation will spend the money to do so and then open source the software. It may (not likely) be jail breakable, but you still have to pay (probably) thousands to get it. I was thinking one way for people to afford them would be to accept ads. I would hate that, and I think I'd just wear glasses or normal contacts. In fact I'd be much more attracted to this sort of thing in glasses, because they'd likely be cheaper, and glasses can probably support more functions. And you wouldn't have a radio receiver concentrating radio energy directly on your eyes.
  - jerf 15y ago
    Hardware isn't software. I run open source on my hardware, but my hardware isn't open source. If your logic held, open source wouldn't be possible.
    - sixtofour 15y ago
      Sometimes open source on locked down and jailbroken hardware is better. Sometimes it bricks the hardware. I wonder what it's like to have a brick in the eye? Also this is a thing that goes in your body, and the FDA might have something to say about open source in that context. Is there any open source software running on pacemakers at the moment? I think there are many more issues involved than simply "it's my hardware and I'll do what I want with it." If we get better eyeware through open source then great, but I'm skeptical at the moment that it can, much less will happen.
      - jerf 15y ago
        "I think there are many more issues involved than simply "it's my hardware and I'll do what I want with it."" Actually, that's kind of my point more than yours. It isn't as simple as a knee-jerk "it must be closed source". You argued black and I argued not-black; not-black isn't "white", it's white and the greys, too.
    - bct 15y ago
      That it's possible now with most hardware doesn't mean much. There are powerful entities that have been working for years to ensure that open source is only possible where & when it suits them. New devices are much more locked down than they would have been a decade ago. That's not an accident or a fad.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  Steve Mann is way ahead of you. :) http://cyborganthropology.com/Diminished_Reality http://cyborganthropology.com/Diminished_Reality
- bct 15y ago
  Open source software is useless if the hardware only runs code that's been signed by the manufacturer. This is exactly what GPL3 is about.
nemik 15y ago
"Your 10000th blink is a winner! Blink again for a free iPod!"

billybob 15y ago

Not if the software is open source. On the contrary, you could run Adblock and never see another billboard.

hcal 15y ago
I am struck by the brilliance of this idea.
sixtofour 15y ago
Why would you think this could ever be open source. It will be expensive to develop, and no corporation will spend the money to do so and then open source the software. It may (not likely) be jail breakable, but you still have to pay (probably) thousands to get it. I was thinking one way for people to afford them would be to accept ads. I would hate that, and I think I'd just wear glasses or normal contacts. In fact I'd be much more attracted to this sort of thing in glasses, because they'd likely be cheaper, and glasses can probably support more functions. And you wouldn't have a radio receiver concentrating radio energy directly on your eyes.
- jerf 15y ago
  Hardware isn't software. I run open source on my hardware, but my hardware isn't open source. If your logic held, open source wouldn't be possible.
  - sixtofour 15y ago
    Sometimes open source on locked down and jailbroken hardware is better. Sometimes it bricks the hardware. I wonder what it's like to have a brick in the eye? Also this is a thing that goes in your body, and the FDA might have something to say about open source in that context. Is there any open source software running on pacemakers at the moment? I think there are many more issues involved than simply "it's my hardware and I'll do what I want with it." If we get better eyeware through open source then great, but I'm skeptical at the moment that it can, much less will happen.
    - jerf 15y ago
      "I think there are many more issues involved than simply "it's my hardware and I'll do what I want with it."" Actually, that's kind of my point more than yours. It isn't as simple as a knee-jerk "it must be closed source". You argued black and I argued not-black; not-black isn't "white", it's white and the greys, too.
  - bct 15y ago
    That it's possible now with most hardware doesn't mean much. There are powerful entities that have been working for years to ensure that open source is only possible where & when it suits them. New devices are much more locked down than they would have been a decade ago. That's not an accident or a fad.
Symmetry 15y ago
Steve Mann is way ahead of you. :) http://cyborganthropology.com/Diminished_Reality http://cyborganthropology.com/Diminished_Reality
bct 15y ago
Open source software is useless if the hardware only runs code that's been signed by the manufacturer. This is exactly what GPL3 is about.

nemik 15y ago

"Your 10000th blink is a winner! Blink again for a free iPod!"